If anything should be clear to the most innocent mind after months of buzz and controversy, it is that we will hear from our candidates whatever they think we want or need.
Unfortunately, that is not by any means a new development in the political arena. It seems that ever since we left the caverns, we have been looking for the easy way up and above everyone else. With the development of what we now call a civilized society, the rule of the strongest slowly came to an end. The measurement of power turned into one’s ability to persuade and gather a loyal following that will recognize and uphold such power.
In ancient times, the rule of the sword played into the masses’ superstition and the slavery of the conquered was used to obtain and keep such a following; however, being still mostly a reign of violence and fear, the stay in power continued to be a matter of killing before being killed. Take the early rulers of China, Alexander the Great or nearly all of the Roman emperors as examples.
Feudalism and monarchy took advantage of peasantry and religion to gather the forces that protected their fortunes and interests since the Crusades to the Napoleonic wars. In those times, there was still a decent amount of truth behind the professed intentions and interest of the rulers. Lands and titles were hereditary and the masses recognized and accepted such rights. There was not much need to deceive or manipulate others besides the aristocrats, and they also conspired and played along when convenient for them. Does anybody see the resemblance to the modern practices of politics?
The fall of the old political structures after World War I and the rise of the new order after World War II brought up and into the populace a new sense of justice and urge of participation. In the resulting chaos, many fortunes were lost and many more gained, empires collapsed and new countries rose from their colonies and many leaders were born (and even more were fabricated). But most importantly, ideals and dreams of a better tomorrow sought the light if even for a moment.
Consider that nobody forced us into Korea, Vietnam became a problem only after things started going poorly and President Ronald Reagan did not have to justify his enormous military spending and confrontational international policy. The Machiavellian creed that the end justifies the means was enough for most of us, especially because the end was visible and its spoils were enjoyed by all of us.
The game of politics has not changed. The values and morals that we profess so loudly are still subordinated to the practicality and convenience of situation. We are all accomplices of that for we all want to keep our freedom, our social life, our money, our house and that big, gas-guzzling car in the driveway. Osama bin Laden’s fighters were armed with our guns and support against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein kept our Middle Eastern oil away from Iran’s Islamic revolution and China’s human-rights record comes second to its consumer potential and manufacturing capacity. It is a cynical world.
Now we have candidates touting us with big words, grandiose schemes and ever-rosier promises; however, the truth is they are only playing the cards they think they need to win this nomination and presidency. Once in office, if they are as responsible and capable as they present themselves to be, they will and should do what is necessary to keep our country afloat amidst the storm that everybody seems to be predicting for the next few years. They cannot just leave Iraq, jump-start the economy, pacify Palestine, get Iran in line or bring down the price of gas. They cannot predict what will happen, even if they get all that done.
I just wish the presidential candidates would drop the rhetoric and empty promises and tell me only how they handled difficult situations in the past, so I can have an idea of what to expect when the time comes for them to deal with whatever comes in our future. Bonilla, a computer-engineering technology senior, can be reached via [email protected].
